If the Europeans really wanted to solve the ‘occupation’ problem

July 18, 2013

Christian Berger decided to solve “the occupation problem.” We can suggest to him that on Monday he also take a swing at solving Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus; Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara; the Nagorno-Karabakh region in Azerbaijan that is occupied by Armenia; Russia, which is occupying South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia; the Japanese-occupied Coral Islands; not to mention the significant Russian settlement between Poland and Latvia, known as Kaliningrad. We also have not forgotten Russia’s military occupation in portions of the Finnish Karelia province. And China occupies Tibet and Indonesia occupies West Papua, and Pakistan refuses to accept Indian sovereignty in Kashmir. We have yet to mention the issues that the EU does find interesting: The Falkland Islands (British) dispute with Argentina; the problems in New Caledonia (France); British control of Gibraltar on Spanish soil; the residents of Greenland, who seek independence from Denmark; and also Morocco’s frustration at Spain, which controls two cities on Moroccan soil, Ceuta and Melia, as if Morocco was still part of Spain.


Judea and Samaria leaders write a letter to the United Nations

May 4, 2011

Please see below letter signed by Shomron Governor Gershon Mesika, Beit El mayor Moshe Rosenbuam, Benyamin residents head Yitzchak Shadmi and others. In this letter local leaders demand that the Unite Nations rocognize Jewish rights to the area of Judea and Samaria AKA “West Bank”. This offers a just alternative to notions of establishing an Islamic regime in the area like was done in Gaza after Israeli pullout in 2005. (I received this letter via email from Shomron Liaison Office Executive Director David HaIvri).

Secretary-General of the United Nations
Mr. Ban Ki Moon
Dear Mr. Secretary-General:
In this letter we respectfully wish to draw your attention, inter alia, to the repeated references by the UN to the territories liberated by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War – territories until then illegally occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan – as “occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)” in UN communiqués. For your own most recent use of this term, see UN News Service, 23 March 2011, “UN Chief condemns bomb attack in West Jerusalem”. By repeatedly referring to the “occupied Palestinian territory” (or “occupied Palestinian territories” (as in UN News Service, 1 April 2011), you are unwittingly concealing from the public the true legal status of the lands to which you refer and causing the Jewish people unwarranted anguish. We describe hereunder in concise fashion the facts relevant to the topic:
The territories liberated in 1967 from the illegal Jordanian occupation that had lasted from the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement in 1949 to the second week of June 1967, are lands belonging eternally, legally and unambiguously to the Jewish People, as clearly shown as follows:
1.
The entire Land of Israel was promised and granted to the Jewish People, the descendants of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by the Almighty for all time, as recorded time and again in the opening Five Books of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Genesis 15:21; Deuteronomy 1:8 et al.), accepted by the adherents of the Christian faith whose Bible encompasses the aforementioned Books, and confirmed in various places in the holy book of Islam, the Kur’an (e.g., Sura 2 et al.). This fundamental precept of Jewish faith is reinforced by various expositions in another Jewish holy book, the Talmud, study of which is common not only in Jewish schools but also in those of South Korea.
2.
Despite the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the expulsion by force of the Jewish People from their Land by the Roman Empire at the outset of the common era (70 C.E.) after over a thousand years of consecutive Jewish presence in the Land, the various Jewish communities throughout the world maintained their spiritual and historical connection with their Holy Land, and this connection was then recognized by the entire international community during the period from November 1917 (the issuance of the Balfour Declaration), through 1920 when Great Britain was entrusted with the Mandate for Palestine and enjoined thereby to ensure the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, and 1922 (with the 52 member-states of the League of Nations confirming the Mandate) to December 1925 (when the Anglo-American Convention Relating to the Mandate for Palestine signed a year earlier was proclaimed before Congress by President Coolidge). Thus was the de jure sovereignty of the Jewish People over all of its Land, which the nations called “Palestine”, confirmed, while attributes of sovereignty were entrusted to the United Kingdom in order that it might prepare world Jewry for the successful administration of its nascent Jewish State, soon to be established in all of the Holy Land, i.e., on both sides of the Jordan River – all this as determined by the World War I Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920 and formalized in the Mandate for Palestine. For the entire Mandate period, Great Britain worked assiduously to wreck the implementation of the Mandate by means of a series of “White Papers” that distorted the original aim of the Mandate beyond recognition.
3.
Even as the League of Nations disintegrated, the founders of the UN organization, the new body intended to replace the now-defunct League and at the head of which you, Mr. Secretary-General, now stand, guaranteed the continuity of Jewish legal rights to the Land of Israel by means of Article 80 of the UN Charter. The UN General Assembly, however, brushed this article aside and recommended the partition of “Palestine”, (1947) an illegal recommendation rejected out of hand by the Arabs of the Land and by the leaders of the Arab states who were unwilling to concede even a square inch of land to the returning Jewish People. This GA resolution was never legal, was never of an obligatory nature, has been dead for over 63 years and cannot be resurrected. The very opposite is what is required of the UN at this time: to recognize the continuity of Jewish legal rights to the entire Land of Israel under Article 80 of the UN Charter!
4.
The ensuing war (1947-9) forced on Israel by the invading armies of five Arab states ended in the signing of armistice agreements perpetuating until the achievement of peace the military lines held by the sides when the cease-fire went into effect and stating explicitly that these lines were not to be considered final borders nor were they to influence in any way the final borders when these should be determined in peace agreements. This, Mr. Secretary-General, is the infamous Green Line, which the UN seems to regard illogically as a border (“the 1967 borders”) between Israel and the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria, who were never a party to any armistice agreement and who had never considered themselves a separate people to either exercise or even demand a theoretical right to self-determination – as demonstrated by their resounding silence during over 18 years of Jordanian occupation and unrecognized illegal annexation (1949-1967). This silence still echoes significantly through the corridors of time and serves to interpret subsequent “Palestinian” Arab maneuvering.
5.
In 1967, war – the Six-Day War – was once again forced on Israel by four Arab states: Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, as the inevitable result of the Egyptian dismissal of the small UN force that had for the previous decade maintained the fragile ceasefire between Egypt and Israel, of the naval blockade imposed by Egypt on shipping to and from Israel’s port of Eilat; of international reluctance to intervene; and of the placing of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armed forces under a unified command. One of the spectacular results of this war was the expulsion of Jordanian forces from the regions of Judea and Samaria (the regions Jordan had called her “West Bank”) and the summary end of the 18-year-long illegal Jordanian occupation of those lands.
6.
Naïvely hoping that the Arab states, after their stunning defeat, would realize there was no logical alternative but to come to terms with Israel and sign peace treaties with her in return for the territories they had lost in the war, the Israeli government unwisely refrained from incorporating Judea and Samaria into the State of Israel – as she was legally obligated to do, the Jewish people having been awarded de jure sovereignty over this territory at San Remo long before (1920) and this having been confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922 – and, instead of applying Israeli law to the liberated territories, voluntarily applied the humanitarian provisions of the Laws of War, as embodied inter alia in the Fourth Geneva Convention. This was a step taken by Israel, Mr. Secretary-General, not out of legal compulsion (as would have been the case had the areas held been captured from a legal sovereign), but merely to protect the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria for what was naïvely expected to be a short interim period. This demonstrates clearly, Mr. Secretary-General, the absurdity of considering this land “occupied”, despite contrary interpretations provided even by some of Israel’s own jurists of international acclaim, who have, in a sense, turned out to be no less than the Muammar Ghaddafi of the Jewish People.
7.
As even a beginning student of Middle East history is well aware, the Arabs responded with a resounding “NO!” to peace, “NO!” to negotiations with Israel and “NO!” even to the possibility of Arab recognition of the Jewish State.
8.
It was only in 1979 that Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and much later, in 1994, that Jordan did likewise. The Arabs living in the Land of Israel have refused to this day to end their hostilities, incitement and criminal terrorism against the Jews and the Jewish State; indeed, some “Palestinian” factions have entered into negotiations with Israel, but never have they been prepared to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion, despite the painful concessions Israel has offered them in order to achieve peace.
9.
The time has undoubtedly come – in fact, it is long overdue, Mr. Secretary-General – for the international community as represented by the UN to recognize the fact that the Arabs of the Land of Israel do not want their own state, nor do they want to conclude a peace agreement with the State of Israel; all they desire is the destruction of Israel; the time has indeed come to reaffirm international recognition of the immutable rights of the Jewish People to all of their historical homeland.
10.
Let us consider two cases in modern history, Mr. Secretary-General, [1] that of Namibia and [2] that of Jordan:
[1] Just as the Principal Allied Powers of World War I granted a mandate for Palestine to Great Britain at San Remo in 1920, so they granted the Union of South Africa a mandate for South-West Africa. Unlike the British, who informed the UN in 1947 of their desire to rid themselves of their mandate, South Africa refused to surrender the mandate with which they had been entrusted. While the UN – instead of transforming the Mandate for Palestine into a Trust Territory under the Trusteeship System, the successor to the earlier Mandate System, as the UN Charter required it to do – recommended by means of its General Assembly the illegal partition of Palestine, contrary to the express stipulations of the Mandate Charter and entailing the gross violation of the rights of the national beneficiary of the Mandate – the Jewish People, in the case of Namibia the UN brought pressure to bear on South Africa until that country relinquished its mandate and the new Republic of Namibia finally came into being in 1990.
Mr. Secretary-General, the blatant injustice of the UN position on the Land of Israel stands out clearly when compared with the UN position on Namibia. In the case of the Land of Israel / Palestine, the national beneficiary of the Mandate – the Jewish People – has been forcibly deprived of its rights, while in the case of Namibia, the UN acted forcefully to ensure that the aim of the Mandate for South-West Africa was achieved in full. It is no wonder, Mr. Secretary-General, that the UN – the organization which you head – is widely considered a biased, unfair and even anti-Semitic organization.
[2] The Kingdom of Jordan exists on some 75% of mandated Palestine. Its ruling class, the Hashemite family with the support of nomadic Bedouin tribes, accounts for no more than 30% of the population of the Kingdom, perhaps even less. The other 70% of the population of that country is made up of “Palestinian” Arab people, the very same people the Arabs of the Land of Israel consider themselves. It is thus untrue that the Arabs of the Land of Israel are stateless; on the contrary, in the neighboring Kingdom of Jordan they are an unshakable majority of the population living on “Palestine” soil. If the Arabs at present sojourning in the Land of Israel prefer to live in their own country, rather than in a Jewish state, they are free to join their brethren on the east bank of the Jordan River, where they can live in peace and tranquility among people of their own flesh and blood, and even more important, people of their own culture.
11.
We must also consider the ramifications of the illegal establishment of yet another Arab state in the heartland of the Land of Israel, Mr. Secretary-General. We could learn from the rhetoric of Lebanon’s Hizbullah and from that of the Hamas of Gaza what fate would be in store for the nearly 600,000 Jews living legally in Judea, Samaria and “East Jerusalem”, but there is no need to go so far afield: the representatives of the Palestinian Authority make it abundantly clear that the territory they hope some day to control must be given to them judenrein – without any Jewish inhabitants whatever. Do you appreciate, Mr. Secretary-General, what it would mean to displace illegally over half a million men, women and children? Israel finds it difficult to provide permanent homes for the eight or nine thousand persons uprooted from their homes and sources of livelihood in 2005, when Israel unilaterally and unwisely pulled out of the Gaza district. Are you aware of the catastrophe suffered in the 1920s by the millions of Bulgars, Greeks and Turks forced to flee their homes and relocate elsewhere? The Palestinian Authority has even enacted a death penalty to be imposed on any of their own people who sell real-estate to Jews.
In addition, it is clear how a so-called “Palestinian” state, illegal though it would be, would relate to the Jewish state, which to this day it actually refuses to recognize as such. By demanding of Israel to cede her own land to the Arabs, you are not only sentencing to relocation in refugee camps at best over half a million Jews, but also condemning the Middle East to yet another fierce war of Arab aggression, the possible results of which are too unspeakable to mention. Is this indeed your intention, Mr. Secretary-General? Can you reconcile this with International Humanitarian Law?
These, Mr. Secretary-General, are the historical and legal facts. One must conclude that demanding of Israel to cede to the Arabs any land belonging to the Jewish People by divine grant and by international law is tantamount to requiring of Israel to commit national suicide and render null and void recognized legal Jewish territorial rights to its national patrimony. It is thus your responsibility to advise and guide your organization to reaffirm the recognition by the international community of these legal Jewish rights under Article 80 of the UN Charter, while seeking to provide the Arabs at present living on this Jewish land with a simple solution to their desire to exercise political rights in their own country – i.e., in the Kingdom of Jordan.
Should you choose, Mr. Secretary-General, for any reason whatever to ignore the historical and legal facts enclosed in this letter, and continue with the present unjust and illegal policies of the UN, we shall feel free to act in accordance with the best interests of the Jewish people. This will entail at very least putting our case before an appropriate international judicial authority and suing for damages the persons responsible for this illegality.

Indeed. And it’s about time we started to assert our rights, no matter how politically incorrect that might be considered.


Holocaust Enabling in Catholic Church Continues. Pope needs to take a que from Goldstone

April 9, 2011

Vatican body asks UN to ‘end Israeli occupation’

…I bet it pisses the Pope off that Israel will survive and Judaism will not submit to Rome. Not ever!

….In final statement of two-week conference, bishops’ synod says Biblical concept of ‘promised land’ cannot be used to justify settlements.  Israel cannot use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people to justify new “settlements” in Jerusalem or territorial claims, a Vatican synod on the Middle East said on Saturday. In its concluding message after two weeks of meetings, the synod of bishops from the Middle East also said it hoped a two-state solution for peace between Israel and the Palestinians could be lifted from dream to reality and called for peaceful conditions that would stop a Christian exodus from the region.

…the Church still thinks there is a “Two State” solution when you have the Shia, the Sunni… not to mention Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah… and these groups really do hate each other.  Where in the two states is the Pope thinking this is possible?

March 2: Pope Benedict XVI  delivers his blessing during a general audience in the Pope Paul VI  hall at the Vatican.
“His blood be on us and on our children”

“We have meditated on the situation of the holy city of Jerusalem. We are anxious about the unilateral initiatives that threaten its composition and risk to change its demographic balance,” the message said. US-brokered peace talks have stalled since Israel rejected appeals to extend a temporary moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank that expired last month. Since the freeze expired, Israel has announced plans to build another 238 homes in two east Jerusalem neighborhoods, drawing the condemnation of Palestinians and world leaders. In a separate part of the document, a section on cooperation with Jews, the synod fathers also took issue with Jews who use the Bible to justify settlements in the West Bank, which Israel captured in 1967. “Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable,” the document said. Many Jewish settlers and right-wing Israelis claim a biblical birthright to the West Bank, which they call Judea and Samaria and regard as a part of historical, ancient Israel given to the Jews by God. Asked about the passage at a news conference, Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, said: “We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people. “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians,” he added. “The justification of Israel’s occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures.” The synod’s concluding message repeated a Vatican call for Jerusalem to have a special status “which respects its particular character” as a city sacred to the three great monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem remains a key issue of dispute. Palestinians want east Jerusalem for capital of a future state. Israel has annexed the area, a move never recognized internationally, and has declared Jerusalem to be its “united and eternal” capital. Israel did not include east Jerusalem as part of its 10-month building freeze, though most plans there were put on hold in March, when the US protested reports of a new housing project leaked during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. While recognizing “the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live” and the need for Israel to enjoy peace within internationally recognized borders, the document was much more expansive and detailed on the situation of Palestinians. It said Palestinians “are suffering the consequences of the Israeli occupation: the lack of freedom of movement, the wall of separation and the military checkpoints, the political prisoners, the demolition of homes, the disturbance of socio-economic life and the thousands of refugees.” It urged Christians in the region not to sell their homes and properties. “It is a vital aspect of the lives of those who remain there and for those who one day will return there.” It condemned terrorism “from wherever it may proceed” as well as anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and discrimination against Christians.

sorry about the vulgarity… but when I saw the headline what went through my head was… well something to do with Sodomy… and I got this image… which made me feel better… which I’m sure G-d will forgive me.


so called Palestine has day of RAGE against US

February 20, 2011

The ‘Palestinians’ have called for a ‘day of rage‘ against the United States on Friday, as they prepare to take their resolution condemning Israel to the UN General Assembly.

Palestinians on Saturday called for a “day of rage” this Friday to protest against the US administration’s decision to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israel for building in the settlements.
Expressing outrage over Friday’s veto, the Palestinian Authority threatened to reassess its position on the Middle East peace process.

The PA said it was now considering going to the UN General Assembly with a request to issue a similar resolution condemning construction in the settlements. Just two months ago, the assembly passed a resolution – which had the approval of 159 out of 192 UN member states – calling on Israel to halt settlement activity. Only six nations, including Israel and the US, opposed it.

Some Palestinians, including Tawfik Tirawi, a former Fatah security commander, called for organizing the “day of rage” against the US next Friday.
Tirawi said that the veto “exposed America’s real face and the extent to which it is biased in favor of oppression and occupation.”
In response to reports that the US had threatened to cut off financial aid to the PA if it insisted on presenting the resolution to the Security Council, Fatah spokesman Ahmed Assaf said that the Palestinians “want to get rid of occupation and are not only waiting to earn their living.”
The US Administration should support the Palestinians and not block freedom and independence, Assaf said. He added that Fatah was planning more anti- US demonstrations in the West Bank in the coming days.
“US threats to cut off the aid show that that the Americans are ignorant of our people’s moral and national values and aspirations,” read a statement issued by Fatah the leadership.
“The US veto is a victory for occupation and settlements.”
Fatah said that the veto harmed Washington’s status as a major broker in the peace process and encourages Israel to continue building in the settlements.
Hamas also condemned the US veto, saying it exposed Washington’s bias in favor of Israel.
“The US veto is an award to the occupation government for its violations against the Palestinians,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.

Here’s a blow-by-blow description of what happened on Friday afternoon.

Obama spoke with Abbas for 50 minutes on Thursday to urge the Palestinian president not to bring the resolution to a vote. According to the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam, Obama told Abbas that the resolution could damage U.S. interests in the Middle East and could induce the U.S. Congress to halt aid to the PA.
Obama reportedly suggested that in lieu of bringing the resolution to a vote, Abbas accept an alternative package of benefits, including a presidential statement on the settlements by the Security Council. Such a statement would be nonbinding, but could be couched in harsher terms. The package would also have included a Security Council visit to Ramallah to express support for the PA and denounce the settlements, and a statement by the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers that, for the first time, would call for the boundaries of the Palestinian state to be based on the 1967 lines.
On Friday afternoon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Abbas with an even more sharply worded message.
But Abbas told both Obama and Clinton that settlements were the reason for the breakdown in the peace talks, and the Palestinian people would not back down on this matter.

After the phone calls, Abbas called a joint meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee and the leadership of his Fatah party. Mansour told the participants by phone that Arab missions to the UN wanted the resolution to move forward no matter what. They then voted unanimously to bring the resolution to a vote.

And then there was the pile-on.

The British ambassador read a joint statement by Britain, France and Germany that said that construction in the settlements, including in East Jerusalem, contravened international law.

The ‘Palestinians’ are the real winners of Friday’s saga, despite the veto, while both the US and Israel are unsatisfied.

The veto garnered praise from pro-Israeli American lawmakers and numerous Jewish groups that had been working energetically over the past few weeks to secure it.
But the Obama administration is reportedly worried that the veto will degrade America’s status in the Arab world.
And an Israeli official in New York warned that “the Palestinian initiative was thwarted, but it increased Israel’s isolation.” Israel’s claim that the Palestinians are responsible for the stalled talks falls on deaf ears at the UN, he added.
Abbas’ rejection of Obama’s request will help him politically, as the Palestinian public will not be able to accuse him of buckling under U.S. pressure, as it did in 2009 when American reservations led the PA to postpone a UN Human Rights Council vote on the Goldstone report on Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza earlier that year. Moreover, given the anti-government protests now sweeping the Arab world, Abbas apparently wanted to demonstrate that it is not afraid of a showdown with the White House.

All of this is Obama’s fault, as the New York Daily News did a great job of explaining in this editorial.

Obama began the botch in 2009, when, out of nowhere, he called for a settlement freeze – effectively making that a precondition for peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
This was something no Palestinian partner had ever asked for or expected. It also vested a third-level consideration with more importance than, say, Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist. And it displayed a naive belief that Palestinians would negotiate in productive good faith if only Israel would make this one gesture.
With the American President suddenly prioritizing it, the demand morphed into the perfect excuse for the Palestinians to stall – telling people to “look over there” while rejectionists continued their frontal assault on Israel’s legitimacy.
Obama further degraded matters by repeatedly using some of the same “settlement” terminology to describe neighborhoods that are home to tens of thousands of Jews in East Jerusalem.
These are not settlements in any shape or form.
And so the Palestinians adopted a strategy of painting Israel as a party so intransigent and anti-peace as to be willing to resist the requests of the Jewish state’s close ally America.
With anti-Israel sentiment running high around the globe, it worked.
The Security Council took up a Palestinian-backed resolution that had more than 100 cosponsors. Desperately, Obama tried to persuade the council to issue a “statement” rather than a “resolution,” as if the damage would have been less, as if any good would come of it.
This is not a split-the-difference, muddy-the-waters kind of thing. There is right and there is wrong – and the President, unfortunately, was wrong.
Not that he is willing to admit it.

Would that this could become a humbling lesson for Obama. His grand attempt to forge a Mideast peace is in shambles. Yes, talks break down, but this is worse. The parties are further apart than when he started, thanks largely to his settlements demand.

More here.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous



Riyad Mansour , PhD, MA

Contact Info: Phone: 
212-288-8500 
Fax: 212-517-2377


Title: Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations
Position: Pro Two-State Solution to the question “What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Reasoning: “Israel’s continued colonization of Palestinian land and settler colonialism is also further destroying the vision of two-States living side by side in peace and security, based on the 1967 borders.”
“Mansour to UNSC President: Israel’s Plans to Construct New Colonies in OPT Illegal,” WAFA Palestine News Agency, Jan. 3, 2007
Members of Congress, Ambassadors, Counsul Generals, heads of government, heads of major government organizations, members of legislative bodies, and PhD’s with significant involvement in, or related to, the Palestinian – Israeli conflict. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, 2005-present
Senior Executive Consultant, Maali Enterprises, Florida, 2002-2005
President, Mansour Consulting LLC, 2002-2005
Litigation Consultant, Leventhal & Slaughter, 2002-2005
Adjunct Professor, Political Science, University of Central Florida, 2002-2005
Vice-President, Intram Investments, 1994-2002
Deputy Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, 1983-1994
Education:
PhD, Counselling, University of Akron
MA, Education Counselling, Youngstown State University
BA, Philosophy, Youngstown State UniversityQuoted in: Is a two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? via israelipalestinian.procon.org


The Occupiers of Palestine

November 21, 2010

Here:

Sergeants Sedgewich & Hurcomb, with Maj. Barry, one of the first officers to enter Jerusalem, Dec. 9th 1917, as part of the conquering British army.
As for “occupation” read this:


Are these Jews in Jerusalem in 1948 the occupier?

November 30, 2009


Looting of the Jewish Jerusalem, John Phillips. Jume 1948Looting in burning Jerusalem, John Phillips. June 1948

An Israeli NGO has sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening a class action lawsuit if she continues to call Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria ‘illegal settlements.’ The letter, which was also sent to Prime Minister Netanyahu, argues that the ‘settlement freeze’ is illegal under a 1924 treaty in which the United States recognized that Judea and Samaria were part of the British Mandate for ‘Palestine.’

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law
via
israelmatzav.blogspot.com

“The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.”
Jewish girl, Rachel Levy, 7, fleeing from street w. burning bldgs. as the Arabs sack Jerusalem after its surrender. May 28, 1948. John Phillips
Jewish girl, Rachel Levy, 7, fleeing from street w. burning bldgs. as the Arabs sack Jerusalem after its surrender. May 28, 1948. John Phillips
1948israel3
Jewish families leaving the old city through Zion’s Gate. June 1948. John Phillips
Jewish people attempting to leave portion of city surrendered to Arab forces. Jerusalem, Israel. June 1948. John Phillips
Jewish people attempting to leave portion of city surrendered to Arab forces. Jerusalem, Israel. June 1948. John Phillips


Are these Jews in Jerusalem in 1948 the occupier?

November 30, 2009
Looting of the Jewish Jerusalem, John Phillips. Jume 1948
Looting in burning Jerusalem, John Phillips. June 1948
An Israeli NGO has sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening a class action lawsuit if she continues to call Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria ‘illegal settlements.’ The letter, which was also sent to Prime Minister Netanyahu, argues that the ‘settlement freeze’ is illegal under a 1924 treaty in which the United States recognized that Judea and Samaria were part of the British Mandate for ‘Palestine.’ The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law via israelmatzav.blogspot.com“The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.”

Jewish girl, Rachel Levy, 7, fleeing from street w. burning bldgs. as the Arabs sack Jerusalem after its surrender. May 28, 1948. John Phillips
Jewish girl, Rachel Levy, 7, fleeing from street w. burning bldgs. as the Arabs sack Jerusalem after its surrender. May 28, 1948. John Phillips
1948israel3
Jewish families leaving the old city through Zion’s Gate. June 1948. John Phillips
Jewish people attempting to leave portion of city surrendered to Arab forces. Jerusalem, Israel. June 1948. John Phillips
Jewish people attempting to leave portion of city surrendered to Arab forces. Jerusalem, Israel. June 1948. John Phillips http://xrl.us/1948jerusalem UPDATE Bibi has agreed to freeze housing building in Jerusalem and Samaria, but the agreement did not include Jerusalem. Obama and his administration are complaining anyway.